It's official....PokerStars purchase of Full Tilt Poker approved!

[buzz12586]

If I don't know my exact balance is that going to be an issue? Are we going to be allowed to log into Full Tilt to see our balances?

[PokerXanadu]

Originally Posted by buzz12586

If I don't know my exact balance is that going to be an issue? Are we going to be allowed to log into Full Tilt to see our balances?

See one post above yours.

[tamiller866]

Originally Posted by PokerXanadu

Although we are saying similar things, I disagree with your logic in regards to the illegal gambling charges. The monies being returned to US players are obviously not being categorized by the DOJ as "proceeds of illegal gambling". If that were true, players would never see the money.

The DOJ is clearly making a distinction between player money and the proceeds of conducting an illegal gambling business (i.e., the business revenues generated by collecting rake and fees).

The DOJ specifically avoided labeling player cash-outs (winnings) gambling proceeds, which is why they ended up failing so miserably to state their claim, they tip-toed around using the Travel Act which would have made their claim virtually bullet-proof, but left players holding the bag if they did.

But if it's an illegal gambling business, they could have been able to order return of unplayed deposits, but the winnings would not be a lawful debt, so if they ordered PokerStars to repay those winnings, it would run the (realistically non-existent) risk of PokerStars challenging that order, but more importantly it would give Scheinberg, Bitar et al ammunition to say that if the debt was lawful, the gambling couldn't have been illegal.

Report was that one of the issues holding up the deal was that PokerStars wanted to handle US payouts, which makes sense for exactly that reason, it would have been a further stamp of approval for the business they conducted in the US.

Your point, that having victims to the fraud allegations certainly does boost their case, so even if the legality of the player debt wasn't in question (i.e. we were only talking about deposits) they likely would still have wanted to handle the payouts for that reason.

But since any argument in favor of the legality of the debt for poker winnings (that the poker play occurred in a jurisdiction where it was legal, e.g.) would have also been an argument in favor of them not violating the IGBA, so the offer from PS to accept an order to make FTP US player repayment was setting a brilliant legal trap - well, maybe not brilliant since the DOJ didn't bite.

[oldbookguy]

Far fected (maybe not) but this is election season.

If PS was allowed to handle U. S. FTP payouts then there would have had to been an agreement with a ACH to process checks / or E-Payments (remember Neteller and the delay) assuring them of no prosection ect (surely the same was needed for the initial PS payback as well).

I can see it now on Fox News - OBAMA / HOLDER FACILITATING ILLEGAL GAMBLING PAYMENTS.

This way, the DoJ handles things through a legal process set-up by congress years ago, everyone has clean hands.

[repulse]

The latest Vardi article brings a very different tone and perspective to the possibility of not being paid our full balances than most of the reports of the last 24 hours:

The Big Question For Full Tilt's U.S. Players: Will They Get Their Poker Winnings Back?

The big question for Full Tilt’s U.S. players: will they get their poker winnings back? Several sources familiar with the situation say no decision on this vital issue has been made, but there are people at the Department of Justice who are uncomfortable with the idea of paying U.S. players money that was won in online poker games played on Full Tilt’s web site. “The section that is in charge of the remission fund hasn’t decided that question clearly and that is the next big issue,” said Jeff Ifrah, a lawyer who worked for Full Tilt Poker.

[lawdude]

Originally Posted by Lottery Larry

Not being a business history buff..... would this assumption be limited to the gambling industry?


Meaning- if a business has a past history of a crime, but the related personnel are removed from that company... is the business irrevocably stained as a criminal enterprise?

No, but gambling regulators are a lot more strict and have a lot more discretion to bar "undesirables" from the business. This is a vestige of the involvement of organized crime in and the rigging of gambling games in the past.

[lawdude]

Originally Posted by repulse

The latest Vardi article brings a very different tone and perspective to the possibility of not being paid our full balances than most of the reports of the last 24 hours:

The Big Question For Full Tilt's U.S. Players: Will They Get Their Poker Winnings Back?

If this is true, this is very bad news, because if I understand the FTP-PST-DOJ deal, it's remission or nothing for US FTP players.

EDIT: oh, and by the way, I think it's outrageous if the DOJ takes the position that poker winnings are ill-gotten gains. The DOJ is on fairly solid legal ground that Stars and Tilt and the people who worked for and with them violated the IGBA and UIGEA. But what federal law did players violate? At most, some players might have violated some state or local laws, and I'm not even sure of that. What I am sure of is there is no basis for the DOJ to force players to give up winnings under federal law. If they do this, they are using the settleent to leverage a result they would not have been able to obtain in court. That may be legal, but it's scummy.

Let's hope the DOJ does the right thing.

[knircky]

Originally Posted by lawdude

No, but gambling regulators are a lot more strict and have a lot more discretion to bar "undesirables" from the business. This is a vestige of the involvement of organized crime in and the rigging of gambling games in the past.

and also so that it can be controlled who gets a licence via politics/corruption.

I.e. Ceasars does not want Stars in the US.

[lawdude]

Knir:

No doubt Caesars will make the argument. I suspect, however, that they won't need to say much.

[ayra]

Originally Posted by knircky

and also so that it can be controlled who gets a licence via politics/corruption.

I.e. Ceasars does not want Stars in the US.

Why wouldn't they?

[DonkeyQuixote]

Originally Posted by oldbookguy

Far fected (maybe not) but this is election season.

If PS was allowed to handle U. S. FTP payouts then there would have had to been an agreement with a ACH to process checks / or E-Payments (remember Neteller and the delay) assuring them of no prosection ect (surely the same was needed for the initial PS payback as well).

I can see it now on Fox News - OBAMA / HOLDER FACILITATING ILLEGAL GAMBLING PAYMENTS.

This way, the DoJ handles things through a legal process set-up by congress years ago, everyone has clean hands.

.... I actually can see Republicans voting FOR a bill which slaps Eric Holder's runaway Justice Department for the December, 2011 Wire Act reversal AND the PStars Settlement language, i.e imposes some sort of ban on PStars from the US market, for say 3 years or until they full pay DOJ, before they can apply anywhere for a license. (Kyl goes out a hero)

I think a federal bill is NOW a coinflip.

[DonkeyQuixote]

Originally Posted by lawdude

No, but gambling regulators are a lot more strict and have a lot more discretion to bar "undesirables" from the business. This is a vestige of the involvement of organized crime in and the rigging of gambling games in the past.

Nevada is seemingly leaning toward practiality, i.e toward allowing expert "reformed" folks into the online industry, and a PStars settlement raises the possiblity that, absent some federal legslation, PStars could qualify for a supplier license .....

There was a great article by Jane Morrison in the Review Journal on the July 26 Policy meeting, but I don't have the link.

[mpethybridge]

Originally Posted by TheEngineer

I understood your point. DoJ could easily be using the term "qualifying victim" as synonymous with "actual victim."



Us too. That's what we're pushing for.

I sure hope the tone of your responses is based in a "we have this under control" mindset and not the "pfft, this isn't a serious concern" dismissal it appears to be.

[ScreaminAsian]

it's not a serious concern.

[Skallagrim]

Originally Posted by mpethybridge

I sure hope the tone of your responses is based in a "we have this under control" mindset and not the "pfft, this isn't a serious concern" dismissal it appears to be.

Its neither of these choices. Our mindset is that doing every thing we can to help make this remission process one that produces fair compensation for all FTP account holders is the number one immediate priority.

This includes maintaining that the only proper and fair and workable way to figure that compensation would be one based on player account balances.

But nothing is under our complete control other than our commitment to make the effort. And while basing compensation on deposits would a "serious" mistake from a players point of view (to say the least), I don't think that the DOJ will "seriously" consider this unprecedented option. They may consider it in the sense that a good lawyer explores every option, but I do not think this is an option that there is a "serious" chance they would chose.



Skallagrim